Plain Speaking

Clear and informed plain speaking is what we need - and what you will get if you read Bill Mitchell - here.

Here is an extract to set the scene.

"Today’s economic data releases in Australia confirmed what all the previous data is telling us – the economy is slowing and may even be going backwards. The latest estimates of tax revenue are showing that the Federal government will receive much less this financial year than they forecast in the last Budget (May 2010). It is thus no surprise that the estimated deficit has been revised up. A responsible government, entrusted with the duty to ensure public welfare is advanced (via employment growth etc), would see these developments as a sign that they should craft further fiscal stimulus initiatives to arrest the slowdown. What does the Australian government propose? Even harsher spending cuts than previously hinted at. Why? Because they are going to pursue a budget surplus by 2012-13 by hook or by crook. It is an obsession. Is that responsible? No, it is mindless vandalism and an abrogation of prudent fiscal management. Their excuse? We are booming and at full employment. Reality check – back to the data – 12 per cent labour underutilisation, retail sales contracting etc. Their ideological blinkers have led them into denial".

But apparently this way of thinking or speaking doesn’t seem to be very prevalent in Canberra. Or at least within our political class. Surely someone - on the backbench at least is a little concerned.

You would imagine that our Government would be keen to keep the Australian miracle economy alive - but they seem to be too busy worrying about what Monsignori Abbott will say and do in response to their upcoming budget - than be concerned about dealing with the actual economy.

It's a particularly weak Government that manages to get itself into a p*ssing contest over when the budget will be back in surplus. A contest that it can only lose because no matter what it says or does - the Opposition will do it better or faster or do more of it. All without having to prove a thing.

OZ bloggers are top notch

I am often struck by how good Australian bloggers are. There is a quality in the Australian blogosphere and twitterverse that is outstanding. It goes way beyond our size.

The Australian traditions of a "fair go" and "speaking our mind" and "open-ness" and truth-fullness" have easily and readily transferred to our independent electronic media.

Some of the world's best economic, financial, social, political and *other* commentary can be found at independent Australian blog-sites.

I can't name them because there are far too many and I don't want to miss anyone out ;-) But they know who they are. There is a quality here that is just remarkable.

And my friends and I celebrate it - regularly. I am having a glass of wine in celebration now.

Cheers to you all.

How Oz of them

Chris Graham has a beauty here - entitled "Larissa Behrendt: Lies, damn lies, and The Australian’s statistics". It's a classic.

He finishes with this.

"With that in mind, I think it might be time for our national broadsheet to dump the smear and gossip and get back to its well-worn recipe of blind ideology paraded as fact, and gross misreporting masquerading as quality journalism".

It's all very amusing.

Bumpf

There has been a lot of bumpf written and spoken about our unemployment and underemployment and how there are "serious skills shortages".

Seemingly rational people writing for our media never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Because the ABS figures around unemployment and underemployment clarify the situation a bit. In round numbers we have about 5% unemployed and 7% underemployed. This means that around 12% of our workforce is not working as much as they would like. 12% clearly puts the lie to the concept that we have "full employment".

The question we should be asking is why 12% of our workforce is either out of work or want more work?

* Could it be because they are lazy, immobile, unskilled and unqualified?

* Or is it because there are not enough real jobs?

Now if you are in the first camp then you would probably want to use a big stick to beat those people up and get them back into the workforce. If you were a little compassionate then you might even want to help them become more mobile and to educate them.

But what would your solution be if the second case were true? How would you generate more jobs and more work for those with jobs? Wave the magic wand, mumble incoherently or just write the manufactured BS dictated by your right wing employer?

The ABS numbers identify around 595k unemployed people. ABS underemployment numbers show that there are around 73k people who would like more full time work and around 733k people who would like more part time work. These are big numbers Virginia.

In terms of the largest group (part time underemployed workers) 22% of men and 16% of women reported that they would move interstate if offered a suitable job. It's likely that there are similar percentages for the other groups.

So much for their lack of mobility.

And of part time workers who would prefer more hours, 128k had a bachelor degree or higher, 71k had an advanced diploma, 133k had a certificate - while just 152k had year 10 or below.

So much for their lack of skills.

Isn't it time we had a real debate about these things - using *truth* and *facts* instead of the made up nonsense that gets pushed by our media - and exploited by our politicians?

Older People

The thing that bugs me today and has bugged me for decades is why we don't value the ideas and opinions of our older people.

Many other cultures do value their older folk. They use them as sounding boards, ask them for advice and they look after them as they age. They love and respect them. They value them.

But here in Australia - we mistreat and discard anyone who is over 60. Why?

Because we don't value experience. Unfortunately few of us are educated enough to know why experience matters. We all have the view that at 20 something we already know everything that matters.

Until the sh*t hits the fan and then we look for someone to blame. Whatever happened to the idea of taking some personal responsibility?

The main consequence of not taking responsibility is that *things* sneak up on us - because we aren't informed enough to know what is going on - like Mr D's expose here. I particularly like the following paragraph.

"Is it any wonder, then, that politicians are reluctant to tell people the truth – the truth, for instance, that electricity prices are going to go up regardless, that our tax system rewards property speculation, that a budget surplus is not an end in itself, that we are in Afghanistan purely because our alliance with the US requires us to be and that we cannot afford the middle class welfare that has built up under successive governments".

Of course most of our "old" folks already knew these things. Did the rest of you?

Wheat from Chaff

A big news event today with Osama Bin Laden killed by the Americans in Pakistan. The President in his normal well polished manner proceeded to inform us direct from the White House about 1:36pm AEST.

And then the media commentary and analysis started. The Twitterati have been tweeting away all afternoon - with the occasional post from the ABC and others.

But the real class act is over there at The Conversation - with stories here and here. Without doubt this is where the news action is.

If you want to understand the story and the implications then this is the place to go.

It must be a bit of a surprise to our mainstream media. They have been mucking about with trivia and manufactured BS for so long that they didn't realise that Andrew Jaspan has snuck in and eaten their lunch.

And a good thing it is too. Go "The Conversation".

It’s come to this

I have been watching with some amusement the debate down there in Adelaide that is raging around a scheme to re-develop the "Adelaide Oval".

The main characteristic of the so called debate is that "truth and facts" have gone missing in action - but who is surprised by that?

Apparently today, the members of the SA Cricket Association (who control the existing oval) will "vote" on whether the re-development will proceed. And so a few thousand geriatric Adelaide elite are tasked with making this decision for and on behalf of everyone in the state. As if? What was that about the "old boys" club running the place?

Apparently all the other vested interests stakeholders have already agreed that the re-development is necessary and the taxpayers - via the State Government are funding it to the tune of $535 million. Of course most of these vested interests stakeholders already have their snouts lined up at the trough. All ready for the starters gun.

From what little factual information is available, the con argument is that it is a waste of public funds that could be better spent on other more pressing state infrastructure. Infrastructure that would benefit all South Australians - not just a few "old boys".

The pro argument is that if this development doesn't go ahead then the people of the eastern states will be laughing at little old Adelaide. Say what? So there isn't a *pro* argument - there is merely a story being put about by the vested interests stakeholders that the place will be viewed as "anti-development" if the thing doesn't happen.

I think we have been here before - usually when some vested interests stakeholders have managed to scam some deal or another that ends up costing the poor old taxpayer and it is in danger of being vetoed then we hear how the place is about to become a "laughing stock".

Someone should quietly explain to Mr Rann and his cronies that they have a responsibility to manage the place for all South Australian's - not just those "old boys" who are obsessed with cricket and football.